Economist Steven Landsburg on Fox News 4/12/05

[kaymakba]

I agree, but he overlooks social programs: Jobless in Detroit draw on social funds (e.g. unemployment insurance), and keep my taxes high. Jobless in Tokyo don't cost me anything.

[SexDrugsFinance]

@kaymakba It's true. If a nation has any kind of social programs it makes more sense to care about fellow countrymen.

[FinesseCool]

@SexDrugsFinance

That might seem like the (politically, and socially) correct answer, but Landsburg is more or less asking why that is so -- especially if from an economic standpoint the non-countrymen are helping our economy more.

[6fox]

Landsburg is right on the spot!

Racism and favoring Americans (aka blind nationalism) are both discrimination. In essence, there's no difference between the two.

[The33Makom]

hjb

[deesroll]

Landsburg is neglecting self-interest. Low unemployment in a given country indirectly benefits even an employed citizen by increasing wage competition among employers.

[aroyal641]

this guy is a virus. his sophistry and poor arguments are infectiously straightforward and shallow... yet this like many of his arguments are both intuitively false and, upon closer examination, deeply flawed. Racism is arbitrary favoritism, nationalism is not arbitrary insofar as our economies function seperately. Why shouldn't I be more interested in my economy performing well when my own economic welfare is contingent to that national economy (and not to China's)?

[SaviorOfLogic]

@aroyal641 No. This is just plain wrong. Economy's are only separate because of things like tax and regulation, otherwise they essentially blend together. china selling the west cheap stuff give us more money (to buy whatever stuff), and also makes the Chinese buy stuff from us, which creates jobs in that sector. Free Trade is beneficial to our economy, and this debate has been over since Ricardo.

[AjaxSexton]

@aroyal641 Landsburgs is a brilliant guy, he's on a 6 minute short interview with a fox news representative, I'm sure if he had more time, without being constantly interrupted by a bias opinion he would explain to you why. His arguments aren't flawed... Globalization is well known to benefit everybody. Your basing your judgment on intuition, Landsburg is basing it on years of study, facts, and general 'intuitive' knowledge any economist has.

[scottvska]

Landsburg is wrong. The preference for your own race over other races, or your own countrymen over foreigners, is just as unchosen as race and nationality. "Racism" is a psychologically ingrained defense mechanism to recognize outgroup members as potential threats - the more alien they appear, the more threatening they seem. Racism, therefore, is itself beyond moral scrutiny since it is unchosen. I can say it's "self-evident" that the preference for one's own countrymen is morally neutral.

[stjimmy111111]

his argument is presented in a easily confusable manner which isnt productive

[vmurali]

If people are for protectionism, then these same people should answer in affirmative to whether they would spend considerably more for cars, electronic goods etc. It cannot be that protectionism is not good in one case, and acceptable in another.

[vmurali]

The interviewer stupidly dodged the insightful question, "Why is it ok to discriminate based on nationality, and not on race?".

Both color of skin and nationality are not a choice made by people, so both should not be discriminated against.

The one argument against it can be that "other countries do encourage nationalism". Even that argument is not a valid one, as it still is discriminatory, and makes us willing accomplices in a dirty, seemingly patriotic, deed.

[DrPhucker]

What a bullshit viewpoint. Fuck this guy.

[jessbuckets123]

Clearly he is not equating, he is making a comparison. Read him, and you'll understand. The fox news guy is trying to turn his argument into something else. Read him.

[nooniansoong]

The equality of people here vs there is a good point, but if we're going to take action, it will be more effective on people here. I think that makes taking care of the home front still a rational focus area. Also, he mentions 'disruption', but I think economists don't fully account the costs of change. Softening the blows of change is probably also worthwhile in endeavoring to make a better society.

[UncleRico13]

Simple non-manipulated numbers rarely make it to the end user, in this case the voter. The current socio-political environment is one of sensationalism. The average voter has no desire to become self educated. They instead defer to the agenda driven media, (be it left or right) to manipulate their perspectives. It's a sad state of affairs when the voting public won't actively pursue independent source information such as the data presented in Larry Bartel's new book.

[cfsimon21]

Interesting video, but from an economics standpoint this argument makes little sense. The "invisible hand" that is the foundation of the modern economists argument is based on the fact that people act out of self interest. If you buy American goods there is more demand for American goods and therefore more jobs geographically available to an individual who "buys American". This guy is talking Sociology not Economics. Unfortunately, journalists don't know the difference.

[Bouje411]

Do you think it makes sense for someone who lives in, say, New York City, to make a big uproar about someone else in the city hiring someone who comes from Buffalo as opposed to someone who isn't already in the City? What if the person from Buffalo is clearly a better/cheaper worker when all things are considered?  Wouldn't you think it would be silly for the employer to listen to the fellow new york city person and hire only those from new york city just because someone was from there?

[cfsimon21]

I think it is in the self interest of people in New York to require such a thing. They do, you must be a resident to be a senator from New York. On the other hand  the citizens of New York to want the cheapest labor they can find (whether it's a city resident or not) in order to save on taxes. My point is crudely: Economics = observe and predict behavior.. Sociollogy = observe behavior and judge it. I agree with your point, but I can't use Economics (as an Economist) to help make the point.

[Bouje411]

An economist studies how scarce resourcse are allocated...they study how people respond to incentives. Free/Unfree trade falls under the study of economics.

[cfsimon21]

True, I'm just not sure value judgements do. If your saying it's not an efficient allocation of resourses then so be it. It seems like he's trying to get into fairness here, which I don't believe falls under the study of economics.

[cfsimon21]

Sure, but equating economic nationalism to rasicm is not economics.

[rangergranger]

Let us frame it this way: Landsburg's REFUSAL to waive his univ. tenure appointment so that economists from other nations may obtain his job is very much like...a cornered serial killer of little children who refuses to "come out with his hands up!"

Now, I didn't say being a free-market economics professor who refuses to abdicate his tenure was the SAME as being a cornered serial killer of little children; I simply said that it was LIKE being a cornered serial killer of little chilren...

[rangergranger]

Hell hath frozen over: I actually applaud John Gibson for once.

Is Landsburg so dense as to believe that a politician -- of any nation -- should NOT be advocating and legislating for the job security and best economic interests of his/her own constituents? Are Indian or Chinese citizens constituents of U.S. congressional representatives and senators?

[claytonlisa]

Landsburg pwn'd Gibson. Gibson is the archetypal partisan who falls back on blind presuppositions when Landsburg exposes the irrationality of supporting nationalist protectionism while eschewing racism.

[pevoz]

Dan Šťastný forever! :)

[LaneIV]

Landsburg is basically right, and stumps Gibson a number of times (e.g. 4:35). However, he tries to be too inflammatory, thereby turning people away from his arguments, even if they are valid. He makes the same mistake in his book The Armchair Economist when he goes on a tirade against "the religion of ecology" without addressing the legitimate concerns of environmentalists.

[jarda2506]

zdravim vsechny z fhs!! at jde prace od ruky...:-) good luck people

[jarda2506]

zdravim vsechny z fhs!! at jde prace od ruky...:-) good luck people

[trpajzlikjedna]

What is the reporter's name? He is a true idiot...

[CaseyKing]

Landsburg is right. It is not ethical to fundamentally prefer one group of strangers people over another because of some attribute outside their control.

[TakisAthensGr]

@CaseyKing So it's not ethical to fundamentally prefer biologically driven good people to biologically driven criminals in general. 

[CaseyKing]

Landsburg is correct. The more important argument though is that protectionism hurts every sector, but free trade can only hurt one sector at a time while helping all of the others even more.

But as for the racism comment, it's obviously just an analogy. The point is every person has basic human rights no matter where they were born, color of skin, gender, etc. And there is no ethical basis to fundamentally prefer one set of people over another.

[andyfortruth]

I see your point, but what if that set of people is your family? Would you still want to treat them the same as people you don't know? I'm going to want to protective people that I know on a further personal level then people that I don't know at all, but that's just me.

[Bouje411]

andyfortruth,

I think Landsburg is saying that you should be able to choose who you want to choose to work with, regardless of whether they're your family or not... if you choose to ditch your family because they don't do a good job, that's okay. But, I would guess Landsburg would be against a law penalizing those who choose to hire outside of their family.

[bassamnz]

No.. that's not what he is saying.. He is saying that people who are born and working in other countries have the same right to a job as some one born and working in America. He said this cuz of protectionism. US jobs are being saved by not allowing cheaper Chinese products to be sold in the USA rather than more expensive US products. ie the china-man loses his job instead of the American guy. That's how it is like racism, cuz the US guy apparently has the right to the job. and it's like racism

[kleymannie]

Steven Landsburg is an idiot, he talks about "things like racism." But he supports free trade which keeps many of those brown and black people in poverty.

[fpm919]

Exactly what data shows that free trade is responsible for keeping people in poverty? Trade is the reason for millions of people in China being brought out of poverty.

[kleymannie]

One of the "requirements" for free trade from the WTO and the world bank is that countries must remove all barriers to free trade and enterprise. That includes devaluing currency, allowing the sale of natural resources to private companies and ending food or fuel subsidies that discourage private companies

[kleymannie]

The probelm with that as you can find out in haiti for example is that when the gov't ended fuel subs. many people had no way to cook, drive, heat etc. so they began cutting down trees whick led to those flood a few years ago in haiti. In jamaica for example they were forced to allow corporations to buy all of their aluminum resources for dirt cheap

[fpm919]

I fail to see how devaluing the currency hurts the country. It makes its exports cheaper for nations such as the US. As a result, we buy more from them producing more jobs in the manufacturing sector in Haiti. For an exporting nation that is a good thing.

[kleymannie]

not if it costs those people more to buy bread,food or fuel. And it doesn't produce that many more jobs (or better pay), if that weer the case haiti wouldn't still be so poor. Besides haiti and other countries aren't allowed to restrict cheaper, corporate imports for the same products they produce. THat happened in jamaica, where it has ruined the farming industry

[Ch28Kid]

Steven E. Landsburg is very good. I love this Everyone Economics articles on "Slate".

I love to see Fox news just got OWNED! GG

[thelodidodi]

steven landsburg is the best prof.

[deligthelf]

Its not racism its supporting your fellow American Neolibral Traitor!

[capichemeesh]

GENIUS! Fox News gets OWNED!

[AgentTelos]

It is becoming evident that it is Fox News' policy to move on to the next quote if they are asked a question that would be difficult to answer to their liking.

If this is supposed to be a News show -- report the news. Report what you have heard people say or saw people do.

But if this is supposed to be an opinionated commentary, and you have guests, and you challenge those guests, you must respect those guests enough to engage in debate. Not belittle them all.

Fox News is a total joke.